U.S. patent number 8,661,889 [Application Number 12/804,141] was granted by the patent office on 2014-03-04 for aura devices and methods for increasing rare coin value.
This patent grant is currently assigned to Duane C. Blake. The grantee listed for this patent is Duane C. Blake. Invention is credited to Duane C. Blake.
United States Patent |
8,661,889 |
Blake |
March 4, 2014 |
**Please see images for:
( Reexamination Certificate ) ** |
AURA devices and methods for increasing rare coin value
Abstract
The present invention relates to coin value safeguard devices
and methods by determining and monitoring the eye appeal of a coin
and labeling that eye appeal on an appropriate holder of the coin
such that the eye appeal is displayed to a viewer of the holder,
and that coin's value is thus increased. Appropriately
knowledgeable graders assess a coin's eye appeal by determining the
coin's axial ultimate refractory angle(s) (AURA) and assigning an
AURA rating to the coin. The coin image is stored in a database
where it may be compared to secondary temporal images of the coin
as necessary to determine whether coin doctoring has been
employed.
Inventors: |
Blake; Duane C. (Westwood,
MA) |
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
Blake; Duane C. |
Westwood |
MA |
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
Blake; Duane C. (Westwood,
MA)
|
Family
ID: |
44067836 |
Appl.
No.: |
12/804,141 |
Filed: |
July 14, 2010 |
Prior Publication Data
|
|
|
|
Document
Identifier |
Publication Date |
|
US 20110126618 A1 |
Jun 2, 2011 |
|
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
Issue Date |
|
|
61226263 |
Jul 16, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
73/163 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G07D
5/005 (20130101) |
Current International
Class: |
G07D
5/00 (20060101) |
Field of
Search: |
;73/163 |
References Cited
[Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
Foreign Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0999429 |
|
May 2000 |
|
EP |
|
2008055267 |
|
May 2008 |
|
WO |
|
Other References
NGC "Star" ("*") T.M. Reg. 77606913 (Registered Jun. 16, 2009).
cited by applicant .
Salzberg, et al. "News & Views" Jun. 2000 "Eye on Grading" 1
page. cited by applicant .
Defendant document filed in the legal matter of Duane Blake v.
Professional Coin Grading Service, Numismatic Guaranty Corporation,
Collectors Universe, Inc., CV-11531-WGY (D. Mass., filed Aug. 31,
2011). cited by applicant .
Grynszpan, et al. "Surface topology investigation for ancient
coinage assessment using optical interferometry", Appl. Phys. A 79,
273-276 (2004). 4 pages. cited by applicant .
Willis, Donald E., Jr. "PCGS Secure Plus" (TM). The Coin Dealer
Newsletter, Jun. 11, 2010. 2 pages. cited by applicant .
Bassett, Richard A, "A Computer-Based Objective Interactive
Numismatic System" (Aug. 2003). ETD Collection for Pace University.
Paper AAI3106821.
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/dissertations/AAI3106821 190 pgs.
cited by applicant .
Halperin, J., "CoinGrading.com". 1999, Heritage Capital
Corporation. http://www.coingrading.com/eyeappeal1.html;
http://www.coingrading.com/preface1.html 8 pgs. cited by applicant
.
Flynn, Kevin, Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs, published by Kyle Vick
Press (First Ed. 2009), pp. 33-35. cited by applicant .
Paparazzo, E., "Organic Substances at Metal Surfaces:
Archaeological Evidence and the Elder Pliny's Account,"
Archaeometry, 615-624, University of Oxford (2003). cited by
applicant .
NGC's Plus and Stay Designations,
http://www.ngcoin.com/coingrading/plus-and-star-designations.aspx,
2 pgs. 2010. cited by applicant .
CAC Keeping Strict Standards (2008)
http://www.caccoin.com/cac-in-the-news/cac-keeping-strict-standards/2
pgs. cited by applicant .
Travers, Scott A. and Danreuther, John W., "The Official Guide to
Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection," New York: House of
Collectibles, Second Edition, (1997)., pp. 24, 59. cited by
applicant.
|
Primary Examiner: Allen; Andre
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Blake; Duane C.
Parent Case Text
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
Applicant claims priority and all benefits of U.S. Provisional
Patent Application Ser. No. 61/226,263, filed Jul. 16, 2009, which
is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A coin value preservation and safeguard holder display method
adapted to increase coin grading precision within the conventional
Sheldon coin grading standard and further safeguard the condition
of an uncirculated coin through the introduction and display of one
or more eye appeal-related information indicators, comprising: a)
providing an uncirculated coin, said coin i) having been
fractionally graded within one whole number in the numerical 60-70
range within the conventional Sheldon whole number scale; and ii)
said coin having been further digitally imaged, whereby said
digital coin image file is electronically stored in a database for
future comparative assessment with a second digital coin image file
of said coin created at a later date; b) including a standard clear
plastic coin holder display device capable of displaying a coin
label in proximity to said related uncirculated coin; and c)
introducing and displaying said coin label, said label being
internally-affixed within said coin holder display device and
further capable of displaying at least one eye appeal-related
information indicator associated with said uncirculated coin,
whereas said at least one eye appeal-related information indicator
comprises a plus ("+") symbol printed on said label defined within
said display device, said + symbol adjoining the coin's Sheldon
whole number grade on said label, and further being located on said
label in proximity to said coin such that the indicator is openly
displayed, said indicator further correlating to a precise
above-average fractional grade condition of said coin.
2. A coin holder display method of claim 1, wherein a first label
indicator further comprises a plus ("+") symbol label indicator
adjoining said Sheldon whole number labeled grade, said + symbol
further being positioned and displayed to indicate that at least
one characteristic of the graded coin was pre-determined to be in
an above-average condition based partially on the eye appeal of
that coin, and wherein a second label indicator further comprises a
gold art symbol label indicator positioned on said label, wherein
said gold indicator is capable of displaying to a viewer, and
indicates that at least one electronic image file of the graded
coin contained within the holder has been digitally recorded and
maintained in a standard computer digital image file database that
allows for future comparative assessment of said first electronic
image file with a second electronic image file of the same coin at
one or more points in time.
3. A method of claim 1 for displaying at least one visual indicator
associated with an uncirculated coin by using a coin label situated
within an appropriate holder, comprising visually including
therewith, and arranged in a manner such that an eye appeal-related
indicator associated with said coin comprises a QUERTY plus (+)
symbol such as to indicate that said uncirculated coin's eye appeal
condition is predetermined to be of above average quality within
its Sheldon scale whole number grade, and the preservation
safeguard-related indicator associated with said coin comprises a
colored label such as to indicate that the uncirculated coin was
imaged beforehand using a conventional digital image recording
device, and that the imaged coin's digital file is stored in a
computer database for future comparative purposes.
4. A coin value preservation and safeguard holder display of claim
1, wherein said holder is capable of displaying one or more
labeling indicators that are located in proximity to a graded coin
contained within said holder, said holder comprising a graded coin
and an internal grading label, said grading label including a first
plus ("+") symbol grading indicator capable of displaying to the
viewer that the graded coin has been graded using a fractional
increment grading scale and found to have above-average eye appeal
within the further displayed standard Sheldon scale whole number
grade being displayed on the label, said above-average eye appeal
condition being based on one or more characteristics of the graded
coin, and said label further comprising a second colored symbol
label indicator capable of displaying to a viewer that at least one
electronic image file of the graded coin displayed within the
holder has been previously recorded and said file is as a first
file maintained in a standard computer digital file database that
allows for future comparative assessment of the first file to a
second digital file.
5. A display method of claim 1 for indicating the above-average eye
appeal-related quality and preservation safeguard information of an
uncirculated coin, comprising visually including therewith, in a
manner such to display said above-average quality eye
appeal-related quality associated with said coin, a plus ("+")
symbol indicating at least partially the above-average eye
appeal-related quality of said coin, and a gold color label decal
indicating the preservation safeguard information associated with
said coin.
Description
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Copyright 2008 Duane C. Blake pursuant to 17 U.S.C. .sctn.401. All
rights reserved.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The study and collection of coins and currency has transformed from
hobby into profitable industry. The collecting of rare coins in
particular has created enormous value, and the market for buying,
selling and trading rare coins has significantly expanded in the
preceding 100 years. The American Numismatic Association (ANA), a
non-profit corporation supporting the rare coin industry, estimated
that the total rare coin market experienced domestic sales
approximating $2 billion in 2003 alone. This value was spurred by
the ongoing development of uniform standards for evaluating or
"grading" the physical condition of the coins. The ANA introduced
and later updated descriptive terms for grading coins (e.g., Proof,
Uncirculated, About Uncirculated, Extremely Fine, Very Fine, Fine,
Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor) so dealers and collectors alike could
grade the various condition of any given coin. Likewise, Dr.
William H. Sheldon created a standardized numerical scale (from 1
to 70), known as the Sheldon Scale, which is now an accepted
standard used to add more objectivity to coin grading (e.g. a coin
that is graded a `65` on the Sheldon Scale is in a better condition
compared to a coin that is graded as a `50`). The basic idea of the
Sheldon Scale is that the higher the Sheldon number of a given
coin, generally, the greater the value of that coin. While a 100
point grading scale was proposed by numismatist and historian Q.
David Bowers, many coin industry insiders rejected the idea,
believing that such a system would create confusion and have a
detrimental effect on the already-developed industry market. Even
with these many positive advancements, however, by the 1970's, the
coin market had grown large and chaotic. Coin grading, and thus
valuation, which was mostly subjective, varied widely from dealer
to dealer, and counterfeit coins were rampant in the
marketplace.
Solutions were sought and initiated. The American Numismatic
Association Certification Service (ANACS) was created to
independently review, authenticate and grade coins for a fee, and
this service was tremendously successful. More recently in 1986,
the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) was founded, which not
only graded and certified coins, but also sealed the coins in
tamper-proof plastic holders with interior grading labels
displaying the coin and its numeric grade. A year later, another
large grading service, the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC)
was started, which performed a service similar to PCGS. The graders
of the certification services evaluated coins for the strike,
luster and extraneous marks of the coin, and subsequently gave the
coin a numeric grade based upon the Sheldon Scale. As mentioned,
generally, the higher the numeric grade, the better and,
consequently, more valuable the coin. These third-party
certification services rapidly became accepted and were extremely
popular with the numismatic community, introducing more
consistency, transparency, confidence and stability into the coin
market. Investors and collectors in the coin market were becoming
more confident.
However, as mentioned, while the foregoing certification services
graded the "technical" merits of a coin, including a coin's strike,
surface condition, luster, and other technical elements of the
coin, none of the services adequately addressed the overall
appearance/aesthetic attractiveness of a coin, known as the `eye
appeal` of the coin, despite the fact that eye appeal is critical
to and often adds significant value to a coin. This omission of the
eye appeal recognition on the grading labels has led to wide
variance between the value of coins within the same numeric grade,
creating instability and uncertainty in the grading system and the
coin market.
While the coin industry has made attempts to rectify this serious
problem, no larger uniform attempt has been made to devise a novel
eye appeal standard. To be fair, certification services have
attempted to recognize a `better` coin within the same grade (e.g.
a `65`) by building additional grading points into the official
numerical grading number. But the level of value added as an eye
appeal sub-grade is unclear from the label on the coin's holder. In
a further attempt to give credit to a coin's eye appeal, NGC has
used a `star` label system on the plastic holder to credit a coin
that has exceedingly beautiful eye appeal as compared to other
coins in the same technical grade. Also, on a smaller scale,
private dealers also have their particular grading systems to
separate great coins from lesser within the same grade: Rick Snow
and Brian Wagner (Eagle Eye Photo Seal.TM.), Rick Tomaska
("Everett.TM." Coin initiative), David Lawrence (multiple star
system), have each developed systems to help collectors
differentiate the low end, average and extraordinary coins. Most
recently, and on a larger scale, the Certified Acceptance
Corporation (CAC.TM.) was created and has given the numismatic
field a system dedicated to help distinguish between high-end and
low-end coins within the same labeled grades. CAC evaluates whether
the grade assigned to a coin by a commercial service and has
already been placed in a holder or "slabbed" is appropriately
graded, in the opinion of CAC. The holders are then either
stickered on the outside of the holder to indicate if they are
correctly graded (with a green hologram sticker) or over-graded
(with a gold hologram sticker) placed on the outside of the coin
holder. For some coins, CAC does not place a sticker. This service
has been thus far successful, with stickered coins trading for an
average of twenty percent premium in the marketplace. Many industry
insiders feel, though, that the service's expertise is quite
limited to primarily gold coins, and the holder hologram sticker
effort is quite accurate in the gold coin series, yet they feel
that many non-gold series are not as accurately appraised and
graded by CAC (for example, many copper series coins), and this is
a shortcoming of the service. Furthermore, CAC does not delineate
the specific eye appeal of a given coin, but merely confirms that a
technical grade given by the original grading service is high or
low.
Others have also contemplated including other information inside of
a slab, for example United States Patent Application Publication
Number 20070113451, entitled "Collectable Holders" and filed Jun.
30, 2006 teaches "Data about a collectible may include, for
example, the collectible's name (e.g., 1884 Morgan Silver
Dollar--$1), the collectible's grade (e.g., MS68), the grading
company (e.g., ANACS), the date the coin was graded (e.g., Jan. 1,
2005), any type of additional information about the collectible
(e.g., the original mintage or print run), the number of
collectibles of that same type graded to date (e.g., 103), the
number of type of collectibles of that same type graded that same
grade (e.g., 10), the specific identification number by the grading
company for the collectible (e.g., 345981112), additional specific
information by the grading company (e.g., internal category number
associated to type of collectible such as 6907.68), and other type
of information. Such additional information may include, for
example, information that may not be able to be printed on a label
because of size concerns. Thus, such information may include an
extensive history of the collectible, populations for the
collectible in a variety of grades, historic pricing information
for the collectible in a variety of grades, information about the
encapsulation authority (e.g., ANACS contact information), and
information about the components of the holder (e.g., information
such as type and version)." Still, to the inventor's knowledge,
until the present invention, the element of a coin's eye appeal, as
quantified as a labeling element within a formal eye appeal grading
system, and recorded within an appropriate holder, has not been
adequately accomplished or addressed at this time. Given the fact
that so much of a collectable coin's value may be impacted by the
eye appeal of the coin, this is a surprising fact that actually
teaches away from the present invention described herein.
So the problem in the industry becomes clear: the rare coin grading
industry is fragmented, and each service may utilize the same
technical numerical grading system, but no coordination exists for
the consistant recognition of eye appeal within the industry. While
many fine grading services exist, including the aforementioned NGC,
PCGS, ANACS, SEGS, IGC and the new Dominion Grading Service (DGS),
the problem is that each has its various strong selling points, and
each is both weak and strong depending on the various methods they
employ, or developments they may have built. But, at the base of
the problem, the industry is not coordinated on one of the
important elements of true coin value: eye appeal. Not one service
offers a truly comprehensive analysis, labeling and monitoring of
one of the most important and temporally-transitory elements of
coin value: (eye appeal, as mentioned, is directly connected to the
monetary value of a coin). Without an accepted and stable system to
measure eye appeal, the benefit of trading coins in a
`sight-unseen" manner, much like a stock is traded, is not
practical. The confidence in the coin's true value cannot be
quantified by the buyer with confidence. So none of the present
efforts to incorporate the important factor of eye appeal into the
grading of coins has been made objective, transparent or has yet
been standardized. In other words, the aforementioned services do
not fairly and systematically quantify the eye appeal of a coin,
despite the fact that the ultimate value of a coin hinges on both
its technical merit AND eye appeal.
Hence, there is a need for a system and mechanism that can
objectively and systematically determine and record the eye appeal
of a coin and then easily and clearly convey this eye appeal to
coin dealers, collectors, and investors with adjustments over time
when necessary. This system would allow coins with higher eye
appeal to appropriately trade for a premium price over coins with
lower eye appeal and promote certainty in the coin marketplace. The
present invention offers viable solutions to the enumerated
industry challenges, including novel methods to remedy the issues
discussed above, and unify the industry in this regard.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides devices and methods for objectively
and systematically labeling and monitoring the eye appeal of a
coin, and thus increasing purchaser and market certainty, thereby
increasing that coin's market value. In one embodiment, the eye
appeal of the coin may be evaluated by professional numismatists or
those with knowledge in the coin grading arts who determine the
axial ultimate refractory angles (AURA) of a coin. A holder of the
coin can be labeled with the eye appeal determined and labeled so
that the eye appeal rating of the coin is recorded on the coin
holder label and visible to anyone viewing the coin. In a further
embodiment, the labeled coin can be monitored over a period of time
in order to be sure that it maintains the eye appeal rating over
time and that has not naturally diminished in eye appeal (known as
`turning in the holder`) or been unnaturally tampered with by any
number of coin manipulation methods.
Accordingly, the present invention relates to a method of
determining and labeling the eye appeal of a coin, the method
comprising providing one or more appropriately knowledgeable
numismatists or those skilled in the grading arts ('known as
graders') and a manner by which to determine the axial ultimate
refractory angle of the coin; using the graders in a manner such
that the axial ultimate refractory angle of the coin is properly
determined; and labeling on an appropriate holder of such coin in a
manner such that the axial ultimate refractory angle of the coin is
displayed to a viewer of the holder. In one embodiment, the
labeling of the coin is performed by including a color-coded label
inside of the appropriate holder which indicates the axial ultimate
refractory angle of the coin. In another embodiment, the
color-coded label inside of the appropriate holder indicates that
the axial ultimate refractory angle of the coin is above average,
average or below average. In yet another embodiment, the labeling
of the coin is performed by including a number on the label inside
of the appropriate holder which indicates the axial ultimate
refractory angle of the coin using alpha-numeric or keyboard
characters, as are defined herein. In further embodiments, the
number on the label inside of the appropriate holder that indicates
the axial ultimate refractory angle of the coin is a number from 1
to 4, 1 to 10 or 1 to 70. In another embodiment, the one or more
graders are knowledgeable about the series to which the coin
belongs. In yet another embodiment of the method, the eye appeal of
the coin is re-determined after an interval of time and the
appropriate holder of the coin is re-labeled with the re-determined
axial ultimate refractory angle. In one embodiment, the interval of
time is one year, and in another embodiment, the interval of time
is every two years.
The present invention also relates to a method for determining the
eye appeal of a coin using one or more axial ultimate refractory
angles of the coin, the method comprising the steps of visualizing
under appropriate illumination one or more axial ultimate
refractory angles on the obverse and reverse sides of the coin;
evaluating the one or more axial ultimate refractory angles on the
obverse and reverse sides of the coin by eye; inspecting the one or
more axial ultimate refractory angles on the obverse and reverse
sides of the coin under appropriate magnification; and rating the
one or more axial ultimate refractory angles on the obverse and
reverse sides of the coin, wherein the steps of the method are
performed by an appropriately knowledgeable grader. In one
embodiment, the appropriately knowledgeable grader visualizes the
one or more axial ultimate refractory angles on the obverse side of
the coin by holding the coin with the obverse side facing up in a
plane parallel to the ground; viewing the obverse side of the coin
for an axial ultimate refractory angle; tilting the obverse side of
the coin to one or more angles; and viewing the obverse side of the
coin at each of the one or more angles to identify one or more
axial ultimate refractory angles. Similarly, for the reverse side
of the coin, the appropriately knowledgeable grader visualizes the
one or more axial ultimate refractory angles on the reverse side of
the coin by holding the coin with the reverse side facing up in a
plane parallel to the ground; viewing the reverse side of the coin
for an axial ultimate refractory angle; tilting the reverse side of
the coin to one or more angles; and viewing the reverse side of the
coin at each of the one or more angles to identify one or more
axial ultimate refractory angles.
In a particular embodiment of the method, the coin is inspected
under 5 times, 10 times or 100 times magnification. In another
embodiment, the one or more axial ultimate refractory angles on the
obverse and reverse sides of the coin are rated on a numeric scale.
In yet another embodiment, the numeric scale has a range selected
from the group consisting of 1 to 4, 1 to 10 and 1 to 70. In
another embodiment, the method further comprises determining an
overall axial ultimate refractory angle rating for the coin based
on the numeric rating of the one or more axial ultimate refractory
angles for the obverse and reverse sides of the coin. In yet
another embodiment, the overall axial ultimate refractory angle
rating determined for the coin is rated as below average, average
or above average. In another embodiment, the overall axial ultimate
refractory angle rating determined for the coin is labeled on an
appropriate holder of the coin.
The eye appeal of a coin is critical to its value, yet there is
currently no way to objectively and consistently quantify a coin's
eye appeal or transparently communicate its eye appeal to
collectors and dealers. The methods of the invention do just that,
providing a mechanism to not only determine the eye appeal of a
coin, but also label the holder of the coin with the eye appeal
determined. Further, the use of AURA allows the certification
services to coordinate and re-grade every single coin they have
ever graded, resulting in resurgence of re-slabbing and, as a
result, an overhaul of a fractured system. In addition, by
re-evaluating the eye appeal of many coins at regular intervals of
time, certification services can more easily identify sources of
tampered coins, decreasing their liability and insurance costs. In
all, the formal assessment and display of the eye appeal of coins
adds a crucial aspect to their evaluation and leads to the
rewarding of coins having high eye appeal with increased value in
the marketplace.
Definitions
As used herein, "coin" is intended to include a piece of metal
(e.g., copper, nickel, silver or combinations thereof or alloys)
shaped on its surface(s) by being squeezed between two dies. In
particular, the metal can be stamped and issued by the authority of
a government for use as money or as a collectable. This definition
is intended to include medals, tokens, patterns errors and other
related conventional uses of the term. Depending on the software
program and biometric devices used, the inventor further
contemplates the definition to include bullion, jewelry, paper
collectables, and antiques.
As used herein, "eye appeal" refers to the overall appearance
and/or aesthetic attractiveness/beauty of a coin with respect to
toning, color, balance, freshness, marks/blemishes, strike, luster,
planchet condition and surface preservation on both the obverse,
reverse and sides of a coin, or any angle thereof. For instance, a
coin having high eye appeal generally has vibrant/intense color,
excellent toning and/or superior luster. Eye appeal may also refer
to level of device/field cameo contrast or proof-like mirror
finishes relating to certain coins, or a combination of any of the
above (e.g. color and contrast).
As used herein, "appropriately knowledgeable numismatist" or
"appropriately knowledgeable graders" is intended to include one or
more coin grading professionals (e.g., certification company
numistmatists), coin experts, coin graders, or other coin
professionals who have, over time, gained significant experience in
evaluating and grading coins, including coins of a particular type
or series.
As used herein, "Axial Ultimate Refractory Angle" (AURA) is
intended to include systems, methods, experienced reviewers, tools
and other items that allow a qualitative visualizing, assessing,
reviewing, recording of the eye appeal of a coin (see, e.g., Scott
A. Travers and John W. Dannreuther, The Official Guide to Coin
Grading and Counterfeit Detection, New York: House of Collectibles,
Second Edition, 1997; incorporated herein by reference). This
definition includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the
recordation of the assessment in a tangible qualitative or
quantitative manner. Included in this definition is the use of
computer hardware and software to assist in the grading assessment.
For one example contemplated by the present invention, the reader
is directed to U.S. Pat. No. 4,899,392 by Henry Merton, issued Feb.
6, 1990, and to be herein incorporated by reference in its
entirety. Furthermore, a common commercial off-the-rack software
program like Adobe Photoshop.RTM. which can be loaded on any
conventional computer system, and employed for the coin comparison
component, is also contemplated. One of skill in the art can easily
adapt this software method, and use for the comparison for same or
multi-coin coin surface comparisons, including the obverse, reverse
and the edges of the coins.
As used herein, an "overall axial ultimate refractory angle rating"
refers to the overall AURA rating given to a coin based on the
individual AURA determined for the obverse side and the reverse
side of the coin. The calculation of the overall AURA of a coin
will depend on the type, condition and technical grade of the coin.
The AURA calculation can be balanced, or weighted to allow a
particular face (e.g., obverse, reverse) to have more influence in
the overall AURA rating.
As used herein, "axial" is intended to include the
manipulation/movement of a coin upon its rotation/tilt in space
relative to a three-dimensional orthogonal axis (e.g., x-y-z
axis).
As used herein, an "ultimate" angle(s) is intended to include the
best angle(s) or `sweet spot(s)` at which to view a particular
coin. That is, when a coin is rotated or tilted to an ultimate
angle, it displays its greatest eye appeal based on characteristics
of eye appeal specific to the type of coin.
As used herein, "refractory" is intended to refer to the ability of
the metal of a slabbed or unslabbed coin to act as millions of
reflective `micro mirrors` and abundantly reflect light, thereby
making the coin aesthetically pleasing and may be read and recorded
as an image by a reflector, light collection device, or image
recording device, coupled with a computer source. Any lighting or
multi-lighting system as understood by one of skill in the art may
be employed.
One of skill in the art readily understands that a commercial image
recording device may record images in at least one (or perhaps
both) of the infrared (IR) spectrum or the ultraviolet (UV)
spectrum.
As used herein, the "angle" of a coin is intended to include the
location of the coin in any x-y-z position and/or plane in
three-dimensional space in order to determine the ultimate or best
view of the coin. There can be one or several such angles at which
the coin has an appealing view.
As used herein, "determining" the eye appeal of a coin refers to
analysis of the overall appearance of the coin and is meant to
include, as applicable to a particular type of coin, assessment of
a combination of a coin's characteristics (e.g., luster, strike,
toning, color, marks, planchet, and preservation). The "determined
eye appeal" or AURA rating of a coin refers to the quantitative
numeric (e.g., grade, AURA) or qualitative designation assigned to
a coin by one or more appropriately knowledgeable graders that has
assessed the eye appeal of the coin. The grader may be on-site or
off-site. The grader may be an employee of a grading service or a
subcontractor contacted to share their experience regarding the eye
appeal of the particular coin. The grading may be accomplished by
one solo grader on a consensus of 1000 or more graders, as in a
case of the vote on the eye appeal of the particular coin in
question. In another embodiment, the grader may be a software
program or other computer mechanical means used to discern various
elements of the coin grade or eye appeal. The grader, in other
circumstances, may be a combination of human and machine working in
conjunction a manner by which to properly determined the axial
ultimate refractory angle of the coin, labeling on a holder of such
coin in a manner such that said axial ultimate refractory angle
rating of said coin is displayed to a viewer of said holder, and,
over an interval of time, assuring that the maintaining or
recording of the eye appeal of the coin is facilitated or
monitored. For example, one skilled will recognize that other
imaging devices, programs, lighting, or techniques may be employed.
For example, a particular application of coin imaging devices may
not need to use the entire visible spectrum or all coin angles to
determine the AURA. In certain applications, using infra-red,
ultraviolet or light scattering imaging methods may be more useful
to identify a specific aspect of a unique coin signature or
specific area. Computer algorithm known in the art may be used to
reduce the imaging data into a single identification computer file.
The file may then be stored in any appropriate database.
As used herein, "holding" the coin is intended to include the
grasping (gripping, clasping, touching) of the coin itself or a
coin in a holder (container, encasement, setting, protector) by one
of skill in the art using his or her hand(s). It is also intended
to encompass location of the coin on/in an object or device (e.g.,
table, microscope, and machine) that allows manipulation of the
coin such that characteristics of the coin can be identified and
evaluated by the skilled artisan.
As used herein, "evaluating" a coin "by eye" is intended to include
the ability of a skilled artisan to look at a coin and assess the
characteristics of the coin with no more than his or her own
corrected (e.g., with glasses, contacts) or uncorrected vision,
that is, without any additional magnification. This evaluation is
intended to comprise computer assessment or assistance or storage
methods, as well.
As used herein, "visualizing under appropriate illumination" is
intended to include the ability of one of skill in the art to see
or view a coin under a source of light that enables him or her to
adequately or best evaluate the axial ultimate refractory angle(s)
of the coin.
As used herein, "appropriate magnification" is intended to include
visualization of a coin by a skilled artisan using a device, tool
(e.g., a loop) or piece of equipment (e.g., a microscope) that
magnifies the view of the coin to a level such that the
characteristics important to a particular type or series of coin
can be identified. For example, the 1879 Proof Flowing Hair Stella
or four-dollar obverse view has parallel hairlines horizontally
across the face due to roller marks, a definitive characteristic of
that type of coin that enhances its eye appeal and value. The coin
has to be viewed under appropriate magnification (e.g., 5.times.
magnifications) in order to see and possibly identify these unique
marks. Further, using mechanical optical instruments, like a laser
or other light refraction and recording source, AURA readings from
a plurality of optically detected points on the coin may be
obtained and processed into a unique value to produce a unique AURA
identifier for a coin. That unique AURA identifier can be loaded
and used via a searchable computer database, and retrieved and
compared with other image identifiers as desired.
As used herein, an "appropriate holder" is intended to include any
holder of a coin and a slab that encapsulates a coin in such a way
as to prevent tampering and environmental damage and that can
display information about the coin (e.g., grade), generally on a
label embedded in the interior or also quantified using exterior
labeling in addition to labeling on the interior of the holder. The
encasement is typically, but not limited to, a clear, sonically
welded plastic of rectangular shape.
As used herein "labeling" a coin is intended to include indicating
at some place on or with a coin holder, including: anywhere on the
outside or inside of the holder itself (e.g., the front, back or
sides of an encasement), on any interior or exterior materials
given or stored in conjunction with the coin and holder (e.g.,
internal/external paper/plastic coin display/support) or on an
interior label of the coin holder, information about the coin
(e.g., technical grade, AURA rating, coin type, coin date, serial
number, hologram, date slabbed). The manner of labeling is intended
to include placing another material (e.g., a sticker), characters
(e.g., alphanumeric, roman, Arabic, Chinese, etc.), symbols (e.g.,
QWERTY symbols [i.e. typewriter or computed keyboard symbols] text,
pictures, art) and colors at any place on/inside of a coin holder
(so long as view of the coin itself is not obscured). This includes
labeling that is embedded in or part of the coin holder itself
(e.g., a colored or etched coin holder or alpha-numeric or
symbolistic grade). As used herein, the "label" is intended to
include any section on the outside of a coin holder or any material
embedded, attached or placed with the exterior of a coin holder or
used in conjunction with the coin and holder which has any color,
hue or shade on the section or material or other written, visual or
other sensory information that indicates/conveys information about
the coin (e.g., AURA rating or coin description). The label may
include other information regarding the grade, condition or eye
appeal, pedigree, price, or history of the coin. Also contemplated
are labels that are computer and bar coded, and contain any
information related to the coin that may be relevant to the coin's
value, condition or history. This barcode may be linked to the
database which can be searched to confirm the date on which the
referenced coin was graded and whether it is the same identical
coin presently being re-graded, and whether the coin has been
fraudulently altered (doctored) in some way.
As used herein, "color-coded label" is intended to include any
section on the inside or outside of a coin holder or any material
embedded, attached or placed on the interior or exterior of a coin
holder or used in conjunction with the coin and holder which has
any color, hue or shade on the section or material or other
written, visual or other sensory information that indicates/conveys
information about the coin (e.g., AURA rating). The color or other
information can cover uniformly, cover some portion of, or be
interspersed among other colors, spaces or openings on the
label/section.
As used herein, "coin doctoring" or "coin tampering" as understood
by those of skill in the art, refers to the alteration of the metal
of a coin, other than to remove a light topical coating, in order
to enhance the coin's appearance and increase its value. Simple
dipping to remove, for example, a light covering of grime or PVC
(polyvinyl chloride) on a coin's surface, is not coin doctoring.
Generally, the intent of coin doctoring is to mislead others and
perpetrate a fraud to increase a coin's grade and/or value and
obtain a high/higher price for the coin. Coin doctoring can
include, for example, among other things, adding substances to
coins (e.g., color, smoke, grease, putty, wax, facial oils,
petroleum jelly or varnish); treating coins with chemicals (e.g.,
potash, sulfur, cyanide, iodine or bleach); heat treating coins in
any way to alter their appearance; re-matting and/or "skinning"
proof gold; "tapping" and "spooning" (i.e., physically moving
surface metal to hide marks); filing rim nicks; or repairing coins
(re-tooling metal).
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B are drawings that illustrate embodiments of the
front (FIG. 1A) and back (FIG. 1B) sides of a coin holder that may
contain a graded coin within which is clearly displayed, along with
a recordation and display of other relevant information, including,
for example, in FIG. 1A, an AURA rating (25) for a particular coin
located within coin holder 10 in FIG. 1A. The AURA rating may be
indicated by recording the AURA rating (25) in FIG. 1A on the front
label (20a), and employing an appropriate AURA rating designator.
One non-limiting exemplary embodiment of an appropriate AURA rating
designator is that of a QWERTY plus ("+") symbol which indicates an
above-average designation for the condition of a particular
associated coin located within holder (10).
FIG. 2A through FIG. 2F are drawings which further illustrate
contemplated embodiments of the front and back labels of coin
holders (10) that are contemplated to contain various QWERTY or
other colored symbols, and/or color-coded interior labels, as
displayed through stippled patterns in FIG. 2A (51), FIG. 2C (53),
and FIG. 2E (55), which may indicate/convey and display an AURA
rating designation or other pertinent description and/or
information relating to the coin inside the holder (10), such as a
coin description, and/or any other information regarding the grade,
condition, eye appeal, pedigree, price, and/or history of the coin
within the display holder (10). For exemplary purposes, the labels
(51, 53, 55) may use color, coding and/or other color symbols in
conjunction to indicate the AURA rating or coin, description,
and/or any other information regarding the grade, condition, eye
appeal, pedigree, price, and/or history of the coin within the
display holder (10). FIG. 2A depicts a front view of the holder
label (51), and FIG. 2B, depicts a back view of the holder label
(51), and may indicate/convey and display an above-average coin.
FIG. 2A, for example of one embodiment, indicates to the viewer by
using a color-coded label (51) with blue shading (as stippled in
the FIG. 2A (51)) printed on the internal clear display holder (10)
that the coin inside of holder (10) has been imaged during the
grading process and said image file has been stored for future
comparative purposes, and further uses a QWERTY, symbol on the same
label (51) (in this case, a plus "+" symbol as the indicator) to
further indicate the coin's above-average condition as relating to
the partial eye appeal of the coin (the label in practice may
further comprise and use other symbols to convey other
information)--the color coding and symbols are contemplated to be
used in conjunction, and not limited in what information they may
convey; FIG. 2C depicts the front view of the holder label (53),
and FIG. 2D depicts the back view of the holder label (53), and in
this embodiment may indicate/convey and display an average coin,
for example (as indicated in this example with off-white/silver
label shading, seen here as stippled in FIG. 2C (53)), and/or no
QWERTY symbol in this embodiment to indicate the coin's average
condition and/or other information). FIG. 2E depicts the front view
of the holder label (55), and in this embodiment, further uses a
QWERTY symbol on the same label (55) (in this case, a plus "-"
symbol) to indicate a below-average coin based on the partial eye
appeal of the coin, and FIG. 2F depicts the back view of the holder
label (55), and in this embodiment may indicate/convey and display
a below-average coin (that may here for example be indicated with
red label shading--as stippled in FIG. 2E (55) and/or a QWERTY
symbol recorded on or within the label to indicate that coin's
below-average condition and/or other information about the coin,
such as coin description, and/or any other information regarding
the grade, condition, eye appeal, pedigree, price, and/or history
of the coin within the display holder (10).
FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B are multiple perspective drawings that
graphically exemplify embodiments of an alternative coin holder,
which allows for the presentation of a graded coin, a photograph of
that coin, comparative photographs, and may also include
identifying coin barcode information, computer files relating to
such coin, the coin's grade, related and known transactions, any
AURA rating designator related to the coin, and alternative
additional space being employed in which relevant attributes of the
graded coin may be further described (i.e. pedigree, historical
data, market conditions, insurance information, value of the coin
as a securitizable asset, present owner or holder, etc.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to methods for objectively
assessing the eye appeal of a coin by determining one or more axial
ultimate refractory angles (AURAs) of a coin and labeling a holder
of said coin such a way that its AURA representation is displayed
(via number, color or in other ways contemplated herein).
Accordingly, coin collectors can re-submit already slabbed coin to
a certification company (e.g., PCGS, NGC, ANACS) for re-grading of
the coin for eye appeal, ultimately adding clarity and facilitating
sight-unseen transactions in the coin market and value to numerous
coins.
The evaluation of the eye appeal and axial refractory angle of a
coin is performed by appropriately knowledgeable numistmatists
(e.g., coin grading professionals). A manner by which these graders
can determine the axial ultimate refractory angle of the coin
involves numerous techniques (e.g., by eye/hand, by machine),
variables (e.g., light source, magnification) and approaches,
(e.g., split grading, technical grading, market grading) that are
well-known in the art (see, e.g., Scott A. Travers and John W.
Dannreuther, The Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit
Detection, New York: House of Collectibles, Second Edition, 1997).
The appropriately knowledgeable graders are experienced coin
graders, typically, but not always working at certification
companies, with extensive understanding and judgment of coin
appearance in general and, in many cases, expertise on specific
types or series of coins, in particular. Graders or those of skill
in the relevant arts may also use, in whole or in part, computer
programs or machine systems to facilitate evaluation.
The graders are used in a manner such that the axial ultimate
refractory angle is properly determined. Thus, using any approaches
and/or techniques known in the art as discussed above,
appropriately knowledgeable graders are able to determine the Axial
Ultimate Refractory Angle or, AURA, of a coin. The AURA of a coin
relates to the concept that all coins have an inherent level of
surface reflectivity and/or reflective capacity, and that each coin
has a special angle at which it can be viewed that exhibits the
maximum effect of this reflectivity. The best AURA(s) allows for
the best or better viewing of the color, toning, diagnostics,
damage, perfection and other important aspects of the coin (e.g.,
strike, luster, planchet). The skilled artisan can view the coin
under a light source (e.g., lamp, overhead light) that allows for
appropriate illumination (e.g., a 60 watt incandescent bulb) of the
coin through its reflection of the light source, such that a grader
can thoroughly evaluate the characteristics of the coin by eye.
Specifically, a grader can determine a coin's AURA by holding the
coin (or its holder) in his or her hand and axially tilting (e.g.,
rotating, moving, swiveling, turning) each side (obverse, reverse)
of the coin to many angles in space and, by simply looking at the
coin at each of these angles, determine the best viewing angle(s)
for each side of the coin. Accordingly, the skill, experience and
eye of the appropriately knowledgeable graders are essential to
identifying the AURA of a coin; there is currently nothing as
effective as the skilled human eye. In addition to evaluating the
coin by eye, the graders can also inspect the coin more closely by
viewing the coin with a device (e.g., microscope) or tool (e.g.,
hand-held loop) that magnifies the details of the coin. Any
magnification (e.g., 5.times., 10.times., 100.times., 250.times.,
500.times.) can be used to view a coin; however, the crucial aspect
to selecting the appropriate magnification is that the
magnification be high enough to identify defining details that
characterize a particular type of coin and/or type of metal
comprising the coin.
The best viewing angle(s) of a coin depends on what aspect of the
coin one is looking to find, and this aspect is often influenced by
the type of metal(s) the coin is composed of. For instance, in
copper coins, one generally looks at the planchet, strike, luster
and color; in nickel coins, the luster, toning, strike, planchet
and marks; in silver coins the marks/hairlines, luster, toning and
strike and in gold coins, the marks/hairlines and intensity of
color. Indeed, there are some coins that have their best AURA when
viewed straight on (e.g., Brilliant coins). Although the AURA
method works for any coin, it is easily demonstrated by a Matte
Proof Lincoln Cent (MPL), for example. Hence, a MPL is a
regular-looking coin when viewed straight on (e.g., parallel to the
viewer's field of vision); however, when turned/tilted 45 degrees
in a given direction, it can exhibit extraordinary color and
luster. Thus, the MPL would have an AURA at 45 degrees. There can
be one AURA, or several AURAs for a particular coin and its AURA
can be assessed on both the obverse and reverse sides of the
coin.
After determining the AURA(s) for a coin, the graders can assign a
particular AURA rating accordingly. This rating can be
quantitative, based on, for example, a numeric scale, or the rating
can be qualitative, based on descriptors associated with distinct
levels of eye appeal. A numeric scale can be a range of any numbers
deemed appropriate by one of skill in the art, including, for
example, scales from: 1 to 70 (like the Sheldon Scale), with the
lowest eye appeal coin at AURA 1 and the highest eye appeal coin at
AURA 70; however, any range of numbers can be used (e.g., 1 to 4, 1
to 8, 1 to 15, etc.). A grader can determine an AURA rating for an
entire coin simply by evaluating the AURA(s) of the obverse and
reverse of the coin and assigning an overall AURA rating to the
coin. Alternatively, a grader can determine separate or `split`
AURA ratings for the obverse and reverse of the coin, then combine
those two ratings in a manner that results in an overall AURA
rating for the coin (e.g., using a balanced average or a weighted
average). For example, the AURA rating for the obverse of a coin
can, for instance, account for one-third of the overall AURA
rating, while the AURA rating for the reverse of the coin can
account for the remaining two-thirds. The determination of whether
a split AURA rating for a coin is warranted is dependent on the
particular coin and/or its condition and is a decision best made by
the skilled grader on a case-case basis. Further, the calculation
of an overall AURA rating for a coin will also vary from coin to
coin and the determination of how best to calculate an overall AURA
rating is also best left to one of skill in the art.
Alternatively, or in addition, the AURA of a coin can be described
by different qualitative designations like, for instance, below
average, average or above average. The aforementioned terms that
can be used to describe a coin's AURA are well understood in the
art, with the skilled artisan well able to identify coins that,
based on their AURA(s), fall into those categories. One of skill in
the art can also create other and/or additional descriptive terms
appropriate to describe the AURA of a coin. A numeric scale can be
used within each of the descriptive designations for further
clarification of a coin's eye appeal. For instance, coins that fall
into the `below average` category can be given an AURA rating from,
e.g., 1 to 70, as can coins that fall into the `average` and `above
average` categories.
Once the AURA of a coin has been determined and the coin has been
given an AURA rating (numeric and/or descriptive), an appropriate
holder of the coin can be labeled in a manner such that the AURA
rating of the coin is displayed to anyone that views the coin.
There are numerous ways in which the AURA rating of a coin can be
displayed on the coin holder. For instance, if the AURA rating is
conveyed via a numeric scale, this can be displayed on a coin
holder as shown in FIG. 1. In FIG. 1, coin holder 10 has a front
face 15a in which interior embedded front label 20A is displayed.
Printed on embedded label 20A, is certification company name 21
(e.g., PCGS, NGC, ANACS), coin year 22 (e.g., 1912), coin
denomination 23 (e.g., 1 cent (1 C), 5 cents (5 C), 10 cents (10
C), etc.), technical grade 24 (e.g., Mint State-64 (MS64)) and AURA
rating 25 (e.g., AURA 3, AURA 66). Coin diameter 30 has a
differential space 33 that is able to secure any size coin in the
holder, displaying obverse view 35a of the coin on front face 15A
of holder 10. Turning to back face 15B of coin holder 10, interior
embedded label 20B displays certification company-specific hologram
27 and date of slabbing or re-slabbing 28 after the coin has been
evaluated for its AURA. Alternatively, a descriptive AURA rating
that is assigned to a coin can be delineated by different color
interior labels that are in the coin holder. For instance, a coin
that has an above average eye appeal rating can have an interior
label of a particular color that indicates the rating, while a coin
with a below average eye appeal rating can have an interior label
of a different color that indicates that rating. A certification
company may use any number of colors, hues or shades to represent
different AURA ratings. Along these lines, the present invention
further contemplates digitally assigning colors (e.g. RD, RB, BN)
and relating the specific colors to numbers corresponding to the
pixels relating to the color image of a subject coin image, and
then utilizing computer programming knowledge in the arts to `read`
the color image and calculate the color and percentage of color
coverage for the entire coin surface and thereafter assign an
official color designation to the subject coin. Furthermore, from
the recordation of that data, future images of the same coin can be
made and compared to indicate whether the subject coin is changing
colors in the holder.
In FIG. 2A, blue interior label 51 indicates that the coin within
coin holder (10) may have an above average eye appeal within the
grade, and appropriately labeled to convey this above-average
condition, while in FIG. 2C, silver interior label 53 indicates
that this same coin type that may have an average eye appeal within
the grade, and in FIG. 2E, red interior label 55 indicates that
this same coin type may have below average eye appeal within its
grade. Note that the stippling keys under FIGS. 2A, 2C and 2E are
displayed using different and appropriate stippling patterns, which
indicate different colors, or possibly symbols'to indicate any
varying level of coin condition. The embodiments taught within
FIGS. 2A, 2C and 2E are exemplary only. It is contemplated that
each embodiment may or may not be used in conjunction with any
other. For example, the addition of a QWERTY symbol ("+") sign on
interior label 51 in FIG. 2A to indicate an above average coin
specimen may be used without the accompanying, and opposite, QWERTY
minus ("-") symbol on interior label 55 in FIG. 2E which might
indicate a below average coin. The embodiments taught in FIGS. 2A,
2C or 2E are intended to be discrete, and one of skill in the
relevant art would understand that the particular condition
designators, like numbers, symbols or colors, may be assorted, used
and displayed in innumerable ways, and may stand on their own as
specific designators of coin condition.
In addition to displaying the determined AURA rating on a coin's
holder, this alternative holder embodiment allows the AURA rating
to be displayed in conjunction with other relevant data or
information about the coin. The data or information may be recorded
on this coin holder embodiment, and coupled with a photo image or
computer file of that coin. This alternative holder embodiment may
be prepared by the grading company. FIG. 3 exemplifies such an
embodiment. Alternative holder 70 can be viewed with certification
company name 4 and a photograph of the coin's obverse 80A and coin
reverse 80B views. Alternative holder 70 has a foldable lower flap
separated by perforation from the top portion of the alternative
holder 70, which may have a label 85 containing serial barcode 26
and hologram 27 (as shown also on coin holder 10 in FIG. 1A and
1B), and notation area 90, which can display many types of
information, including but not limited to the coin's technical
grade, AURA rating, particularly attractive eye appeal angles, or
any other interesting or distinguishing characteristics of the
coin. The coin's photograph may be sent from the grading company
back to the coin submitter as a separate product apart from the
actual slabbed coin, or the slabbed coin may be attached within the
alternative holder 70, this time with the alternative holder 70
serving as a secondary holder, which would allow the graded coin to
be inserted within, and along with all of the pertinent information
relating to coin, and be transported together with the coin.
Alternative holder 70 embodiment is contemplated by the inventor as
an aid to storage or display, as well as allowing the coin owner to
insure his graded coin based on not only the coin, but valuable
external information related to the coin.
Pedigree and AURA rating would be non-limiting examples of external
information embodiments which may increase the value of the coin.
The alternative holder 70 embodiment might allow for efficient
sight-unseen trading, and further allow the product to be sold and
or traded much like a stock or other valuable certificate-based
asset.
Documentation of a coin's appearance is important, as a coin's eye
appeal can change over a period of time. This change can happen
naturally due to the reactive nature of the metal the coins are
composed of with elements in the coin's environment (e.g.,
corrosion, oxidation). Although some of these reactive changes to
the coin are damaging (e.g., changes due to salt-water, PVC), the
reaction process also accounts for many of the spectacular changes
to original coins that give them high eye appeal (e.g., color,
toning) and increased value. Since natural elements can eventually
ruin a coin's appearance, certification companies have created coin
holders (e.g., slabs) as a means to both display a coin and protect
it from environmental damage.
However, the eye appeal of a coin can also change unnaturally
and/or artificially. It is understood by those in the art that
these unnatural changes to a coin's appearance are typically the
by-product of "coin doctoring", which is incentivized by the higher
prices obtained for coins with outstanding eye appeal. There are
numerous ways by which a coin can be doctored. For example, a coin
doctor can chemically treat a coin to achieve artificial toning,
for instance. Still, at some point, the chemical reaction needs to
be stopped and, to accomplish this, certain chemical reaction
neutralizing agents or `stoppers` are often added. However, if the
reaction is not stopped or the attempt to do so is not completely
successful, a graded and slabbed coin, even while inside a sealed
plastic holder, can continue to oxidize, destroying the coin's eye
appeal and, most likely, ruining the coin and it's original value.
The determination of AURA, though, can be used as part of a coin
preservation safeguard system by certification companies. Thus, the
preservation safeguard system involves an initial
evaluation/re-evaluation of a coin for its AURA and securing of
that AURA. After the evaluation and assignment of an AURA rating to
the coin, a high-grade/quality digital photograph or video
recording of the coin's obverse and reverse views can be taken and
the images along with other pertinent information (e.g., identity
of the coin's owner and/or submitter), maintained in an electronic
database by one or more grading services. (e.g., any digital,
optical, or other storage systems known in the art including hard
drives and hard drive arrays, CD-ROM or DVD discs, intra-company or
external computer networks, etc.) that allows subsequent searching
and retrieval of the image. The inventor contemplates that a coin
specimen may be imaged by techniques appreciated in the art, such
as standard coin photography, laser imaging, computer imaging,
biometrics, and even mechanical scanning, and the coin image may be
stored by any of a number of adequate data database storage means
known in the art, including any functional type of computer hard
drives located internally, externally, on disk, on tape, and stored
in in-house or remote image storage depositories or hard drives.
The images can be retrieved for comparative or display purposes at
any time. By `comparative`, the inventor intends to mean that one
or more coin images, created in any one or more points in time, may
be compared to one or more secondary images of that same coin
specimen, imaged at another point in time. Alternatively, the
invention also considers that one first coin image may be compared
to an image of a second coin, or even more. The "CP16 CoinAnalyzer"
(purchased from CoinSecure, Inc., of Mountain View, Calif.) is one
example of a preferred device that may be used to scan and image a
coin's surfaces and secure the surface characteristics of that coin
in an electronic database for future temporal retrieval and
analysis, and may serve as one or more steps in the manner by which
determining and labeling the eye appeal of a coin may be
effectuated.
Furthermore, as the eye appeal of a coin is determined and stored,
the labeling of an eye appeal designation on a coin holder or
container of such coin in a manner such that said eye appeal rating
of that coin is displayed to a viewer of the coin in that container
may be achieved in a number of different ways which can be
understood by those of skill in the relevant arts. Some examples of
optical-related technology are contemplated herein for use in
present embodiment as elements and manners in which a coin may be
imaged and stored for security-related purposes.
The coin is then slabbed/re-slabbed and returned to the
owner/submitter. The crucial part of the preservation safeguard
system relates to the continued re-evaluation of the coin's AURA
over time adds a level of security. Although a coin can be
re-evaluated at any time interval deemed appropriate by a
certification company, doctored coins can degrade substantially in
as little as a year; consequently, the evaluation of a coin every
one or two years, for example, can be appropriate. After the
specified interval of time has passed, the coin is again submitted
to the certification company that in turn re-evaluates and rates
its AURA and photographs it once more. This process constitutes a
`check-up` on the coin that allows the certification company to
ensure that the coin is maintaining its initial eye appeal and, by
extension, has not been doctored.
Coin owners benefit from a preservation safeguard system involving
regular coin check-ups because it helps them document and
demonstrate a coin's continued quality and value in the coin market
and for insurance purposes. For certification companies, which not
only grade a coin but also guarantee its authenticity, the
preservation safeguard system represents an opportunity for them to
keep track of the eye appeal of coins over time and potentially
identify the source(s) (e.g., owners, submitters) of coins that,
with consistency and/or regularity degrade or turn after slabbing,
assumedly due to coin doctoring. Thus, with the likelihood of being
caught increased several-fold through the use of the preservation
safeguard system, many coin doctors will receive a disincentive
from perpetrate coin tampering. Importantly, this AURA-based
evaluation system may decrease coin doctoring activity, likely
reducing the liability of coin certification companies, and thus
significantly lowering the company's insurance costs.
Thus, the coin industry can benefit from many new embodiments of
the present invention, including but not limited to periodic coin
grading eye appeal `checks` and AURA re-grades, judging eye appeal
and offering AURA ratings after a coin has been in the holder for a
certain period of time; coating coins with an inert substances upon
slabbing to ensure that eye appeal remains unchanged, dating to
time in which a certain AURA eye appeal rating is made. It is
believed that the present invention in its many embodiment will
thus be of great benefit to coin buyers and reputable dealers alike
in that coin markets (like stocks or other tangible assets) change
all the while, so a coin's eye appeal changing, from the dated
time, is an excepted and calculated risk of buying, and can be
monitored with more precision, as well as the industry wide effort
to shut down the coin doctors (using the systems and related
embodiments mentioned in this patent) can be achieved over
time.
Thus, coins can be given a Sheldon scale grade, as it historically
has been given, but with the addition of an AURA rating grade, as
well, which the inventor believes will some of the guess work out
of the present market grading predicament within the industry. The
system quantifies, and by extension, qualifies coin value. This new
AURA rating system will therefore foster a `sight-unseen` coin
purchasing transaction system that is more precise than the present
grading and transaction systems, and allow the industry to move
forward.
Those of skill in the art will realize that the present invention
may be practiced for increased market certainty using various
alternatives embodiments, including, but not limited to
computerized grading, coin recognition software, fractional and two
sided grades, counterfeit holder detectors, radio frequency
identification chips, coin exchange markets (like commodities and
stocks), acceptance of numismatic holding in 401Ks and other
retirement plans, accurate insurance coverage for numismatic
holdings (somewhat in line with the certainty strived for in other
industries, including those involving precious gemstones and
art).
* * * * *
References